Roger Stritmatter and Mark Anderson presented an update on their research into Edward de Vere’s Geneva Bible and what it means for both Shakespeare studies in general and for the authorship debate.
This review (by Roger Stritmatter) of Prof. Shaheen’s 1993 book was first published in The Elizabethan Review. Stritmatter uses his continuing research into Edward de Vere’s bible for reference points in reviewing and commenting on Shaheen’s latest work.
This paper by Oxfordian researcher Peter Moore was presented at the Society’s 20th Annual Conference in Minneapolis last October, 1996. Moore reviews the state of the debate in the 1990’s, with advice for Oxfordians on how to debate the issue more effectively, and questions for Stratfordians on some of the many unaddressed weaknesses in the Stratford story, such as the strange case of which came first — Shakespeare’s King John or the anonymous 1591 The Troublesome Reign of King John.
Author and journalist Joseph Sobran examines this distinct anonymous sonnet from 1591 for its “Shakespearean” qualities (qualities which other orthodox scholars have also noted), and concludes that, if it is by Shakespeare, it poses a serious problem for the Stratford attribution of the Shakespeare authorship.
This new translation by Dr. Noemi Magri of the transcript of the Venitian choirboy’s interrogation by local authorities in 1577 reveals that young Orazio’s stay with the Earl of Oxford in 1576-1577 did not involve any “sexual abuse” as is reported on the Oxford and Orazio Cogno section of Prof. Alan H. Nelson’s Home Page. Instead, the concern over Orazio’s being “perverted” (the transcript’s language) has to do with the possibility of his being “converted” to Queen Elizabeth’s faith by “reading prohibited books” or being taught the “doctrine of heretics.”
John Rollett takes a fresh look at Prof. Donald Foster’s award-winning thesis of 10 years ago that the enigma of the Sonnets Dedication was actually nothing more than a typographical error.
Joseph Sobran writes about the central thesis to his new book Alias Shakespeare, namely that the Sonnets provide the key evidence that the author of the Shakespeare Canon cannot be the Stratford man, and must be, among all the various claimants, Edward de Vere; and further, that the homosexual relationship revealed in the Sonnets explains the reason for covering up the true authorship.
Charlton Ogburn, Jr. responds to Sobran’s “Shakespeare’s Disgrace” by noting that the homosexual theory doesn’t measure up either to Oxford’s known life, or to what is revealed of the author in all the Shakespeare plays. He considers instead that the controversial alternate theory to the relationship between Shakespeare/Oxford and Southampton (i.e. that they may have been family) is more likely to explain the authorship mystery and the need for preserving his mature works under the “Shake-speare” pseudonym.
For a different perspective on how shame and disgrace may play into the Shakespeare authorship debate, Oxfordian Peter R. Moore looks at what the annual voting for Knights of the Garter during Elizabeth’s reign may tell us about Oxford’s reputation among his peers during his lifetime, and how that reputation may dovetail with the clear references in the Sonnets to Shakespeare’s own acknowleged shame and disgrace.
Mark Anderson considers the intriguing parallels between art and science in understanding how the true solution to a problem can be “beautiful.”
Hank Whittemore explores the core of Shakespeare / Oxford’s being and growth as an artist by looking at his life-long relationship with Ovid’s Metamorphoses.
In a 1941 article Charles Wisner Barrell considered how the author’s personal acquaintance with 16th century Irish culture, legends and music is reflected in the Shakespeare works.
Donald LaGreca looks at Kent’s character as something that was perhaps carefully crafted by the author to be a righteous model of his brother-in-law, Peregrine Bertie, Lord Willoughby.
Hiding behind a mask was more of a commonplace in Elizabethan England than many of us in the 20th century might suspect. Stephanie Hughes presents a brief overview of how the history of public rituals and celebrations played into the development of masques, and eventually, the theater of the times.
In 1941 noted Oxfordian researcher Eva Turner Clark examined an oft-ignored aspect of Elizabethan theatre –scenery– and discovered that the records for the Court Revels indicate a clear record of elaborate, expensive stage and costume design. Clark concludes by wondering whether a certain, theatre-addicted, spendthrift earl might have been the artistic and financial force behind the scenery.
This article from the Summer 1998 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter gives an introduction and brief overview of researcher Peter Dickson’s startling, provocative theory about the true political-historical context surrounding the publication of the First Folio, namely that the publication occurred in the midst of a major –but now all but forgotten– historic event: the Spanish Marriage Crisis. Dickson makes a strong case that the First Folio publication project must have been connected with –and influenced by– this political crisis. Such a connection –if borne out over time– could change forever all Shakespearean scholarship (Stratfordian and anti-Stratfordian) on this critical period in English history.
